Friday, December 08, 2006

There has been much brouhaha in the past week about the San Joaquin diocesan convention, which voted to remove all references to the Episcopal Church from its constitution, instead declaring itself a member of the Anglican Communion. Mind you, no ecclesial body can legitimately claim to be Anglican unless recognition is given by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But that does not stop these guys! (And yes, they are almost all "guys.")

One of the interesting aspects of the San Joaquin convention was the presentation broadcast to the convention by Greg Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone (comprising some scattered parishes in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay). The talk is available here or here.

In it, he seems to assure the supposedly "faithful Anglicans" [a.k.a. secessionist Episcopalians] that he will have a new Anglican province created for them in the U.S., parallel to but separate from the tainted Episcopal Church.

Venables' speech has been much discussed in the blogosphere. On an Episcopal listserv of some renown, there were serious questions about whether and/or how such a thing could come to pass. [The answer, in a nutshell: It could only happen if 2/3 of the Primates approve it.]

But this was the very, very best moment in the discussion.

In the midst of all these erudite questions about what Anglican polity allows, the Rev. Andrew T. Gerns asked the pithy question, cutting to the heart of the matter:

"So what will they call it? The Episcopal Church, Missouri Synod?"

I don't mind telling you that I nearly spewed my coffee all over my computer keyboard and screen when I read his modest question!

[Incidentally, I commend Father Gerns' blog to you all. He's not a daily blogger. But when he writes, it's worth reading -- unlike me, who writes whether or not I have a significant thought.]

Indeed! The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod is obsessed with purity and with who's in and who's out. (Sound familiar?) You can't even take communion in a Missouri Synod Lutheran church unless you are known to the pastor. And folks are forever being thrown out of Missouri Synod churches for one reason or another. [Hat-tip to "jerseyjo" for kindly pointing out some errors about the LCMS in the initial posting.]

In the Episcopal Church today, the purity movement seems to be directed from Pittsburgh. Or at least that's what Akinola has told us to believe.

Therefore, I think this name should stick (but with a twist) for the purportedly pure Episcopalians who are feeling called-out from among us: let them be Pittsburgh Synod Episcopalians!

PSE. It has a certain ring to it, I think. Just don't say it too fast.

Thanks, jerseyjo, for taking the time to correct me. I failed to do my homework. A friend here was in seminary during the last split among the Lutherans, and I obviously conflated that with the 19th-century creation of the LCMS. I'll go back to my post and make the corrections.

Links to this post:

About Me

I'm a progressive Episcopalian raised in the South and now (thanks to a job change) living in the conservative Midwest. I worship at Grace Episcopal Church in Jefferson City. I love the Episcopal Church, which rescued me from a life of wandering meaningless and gave me a way to explore my faith and belief in God.
On any given topic, I am prone to yammer-on way too long. Sometimes I ponder way more than I should.
A blog-friend said that I demonstrate a "muscled love for our Church." I hope I can live up to that.
And right now I'm pondering Blogger's challenge to define myself in 1200 characters.